Catchwords: Planning Appeal - multi-unit development - whether car parking requirements of planning scheme met - whether development will lead to excessive parking on street - whether off-street parking is sufficient.

Cases Cited: Costmac Investments Pty Ltd v Sorell Council [2021] TASRMPAT 27, Jacobs v Hobart City Council [2023] TASCAT 158, S & S McElwaine & A Hamilton v West Tamar Council and Growth Developments Pty Ltd [2021] TASCAT 4, Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705, Secretary to the Department of Business and Innovation v Murdesk Investments Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 581

Representation: Appellant: J O'Farrell of Counsel, instructed by Tierney Law

Second Respondent: D Morris and R Holbrook of Simmons Wolfhagen

1. This planning appeal concerns a proposed 26 dwelling residential development (the Proposal) at 3A Giblin Street, Lenah Valley (the Site).
2. The Second Respondents (collectively, the Developer), sought and were granted planning approval from the first respondent (the Council) on 18 March 2025.
3. The Appellant, an individual who submitted a representation to the council during advertisement of the planning application, has appealed the grant of the planning permit to the Tribunal. In his notice of appeal dated 4 April 2025, the Appellant expressed four grounds of appeal.
4. By the time the appeal made its way to a final hearing, that was reduced to a single ground concerning whether or not the proposal complied with the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (the Scheme) with respect to car parking.

1. The site is a large vacant lot of land on the eastern side of Giblin Street with access to the dwellings via an access strip running along the southern boundary. The site is towards the southern end of Giblin Street which is characterised by existing single dwellings
2. The property comprises of a large vacant lot of land of approximately 8,500 square metres at the eastern end of Giblin Street closest to Mount Stewart, which is characterised by nearby existing single dwellings. The block of land has a negative gradient from the crossover at Giblin Street before rising sharply towards the rear end of the block which abuts a public park known as Mount Stewart Park, which is accessed via Benjafield Terrace. It is a steep block.
3. Five of the 26 dwellings are to be three bedrooms which provide two parking spaces each. The remaining 21 two bedrooms have one parking space each. Nine visitor spaces are located within the site. The total on-site parking is therefore 40 spaces.
4. The proposal is shown in the diagram reproduced below, taken from the architectural plans submitted with the development application.

1. On 5 July 2025, the Tribunal conducted a site visit of the property.

Grounds of appeal and relevant scheme provisions

1. The appellant's sole ground of appeal was expressed as follows:

1. The proposed development fails to comply with the acceptable solution (A1) or the performance criteria (P1) in clause E6.6.1 of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 ("the Scheme") in that there will be insufficient car parking to meet the needs of all users of the development.

(a) There is no evidence to support a claim that occupants of the 2 bedroom units will generally operate only one vehicle - P1(a) car parking demand will significantly exceed available spaces;

(b) No evidence is provided to support a claim that there is adequate street parking at the top end of Giblin Street to offset the 21 car park shortfall in the proposal:

(a) P1(b) - there is insufficient availability of on-street and public car parking in the locality;

(b) P1 (c) and (d) - there is insufficient availability and frequency of public transport within a 400m walking distance of the site:

(i) there is no public transport available within 400m of the site.

(ii). the Giblin Street bus service is ~425m from the site and is very limited, with hourly services ceasing at 2.26PM on weekdays and no services at all available on weekends.

(iii) The Augusta Road bus stop is ~725m from the entrance to the site and the average incline from the Augusta Road bus stop to the site is >5%.

(c) It is submitted that the shortfall in parking off and on street is significant and the available parking does not satisfy the Scheme requirement.

1. The relevant part of the planning scheme being clause E6.1.1 is stated as follows:

a) there is enough car parking to meet the reasonable needs of all users of a use or development, taking into account the level of parking available on or outside of the land and the access afforded by other modes of transport.

b) a use or development does not detract from the amenity of users or the locality by:

1. preventing regular parking overspill;
2. minimising the impact of car parking on heritage and local character.

(a) no less than and no greater than the number specified in Table E6.1;

(i) the site is subject to a parking plan for the area adopted by Council, in which case parking provision (spaces or cash-in-lieu) must be in accordance with that plan;

(ii) the site is subject to clauses E6.6.5, E6.6.6, E6.6.7, E6.6.8, E6.6.9 or E6.6.10 of this planning scheme.

The number of on-site car parking spaces must be sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of users, having regard to all of the following:

a) car parking demand;

b) the availability of on-street and public car parking in the locality;

c) the availability and frequency of public transport within a 400m walking distance of the site;

d) the availability and likely use of other modes of transport;

e) the availability and suitability of alternative arrangements for car parking provision;

f) any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car parking spaces by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces;

g) any car parking deficiency or surplus associated with the existing use of the land;

h) any credit which should be allowed for a car parking demand deemed to have been provided in association with a use which existed before the change of parking requirement, except in the case of substantial redevelopment of a site;

1. the appropriateness of a financial contribution in lieu of parking towards thecost of parking facilities or other transport facilities, where such facilities exist or are planned in the vicinity

j) any verified prior payment of a financial contribution in lieu of parking for the land;

k) any relevant parking plan for the area adopted by Council;

1. the impact on the historic cultural heritage significance of the site if subject to the Local Heritage Code;

m) whether the provision of the parking would result in the loss, directly or indirectly, of one or more significant trees listed in the Significant Trees Code

1. For a multiple dwelling development such as the proposal, Table E6.1 requires two resident parking spaces for each dwelling of two or more bedrooms. Visitor parking is required at the rate of 1/3 dwellings (for internal lots or lots at the head of a cul-de-sac), or 1/5 dwellings (for other lots) - both rates rounded up to the nearest whole number. The total Scheme requirement is, therefore, 52 resident spaces and either 9 or 6 visitor spaces - that is 58-61 spaces in total. The Proposal's 40 provided spaces are, therefore, deficient by 18-21 spaces.
2. The parties were all agreed that acceptable solution A1 was not met, and therefore the proposal had to satisfy the performance criteria in P1 of the relevant part of the scheme.
3. The parties were also agreed that, of the relevant factors that the Tribunal was to have regard to in E6.6.1 P1, clauses (e) - (m) were not relevant.

1. The expert evidence concentrated on three main issues, being the parking demand of the proposal, the availability of on-street parking, and details of bus services in the locality.
2. The appeal relied on the expert opinions of two very experienced traffic engineers, who between them produced several expert reports and were cross-examined at the hearing.
3. Mr Mark Petrusma of Ratio Consultants was called to give evidence on behalf of the Developer. Mr Keith Midson of Midson Traffic was called to give evidence on behalf of the Appellant.
4. The Council called no evidence but made submissions at the final hearing.
5. The final hearing was scheduled to run for two days on 3 - 4 July 2025.
6. Shortly before the hearing, the Tribunal identified what appeared to be an error in both Mr Petrusma and Mr Midson's reports. The error was that both Mr Petrusma and Mr Midson had proceeded upon the factual assumption that the total number of bedrooms across all 26 proposed dwellings was 53 bedrooms. However, the advertised plans showed 57 bedrooms. The number of bedrooms assumed some importance in the analysis of both Mr Petrusma and Mr Midson. It appeared that they had relied on an earlier report misstating the number of bedrooms proposed..
7. Because the calculation of bedrooms would affect the evidence of Messrs Midson and Petrusma, the Tribunal invited the parties to revisit their expert reports using the correct number of bedrooms in the development.
8. Both parties took up that opportunity and moved quickly to file updated reports from both Mr Midson and Mr Petrusma.
9. The final hearing was then able to be commenced and concluded in a single day on 4 July 2025.

1. Crucial to both Mr Petrusma's and Mr Midson's evidence, and relevant to the determination of this matter, was the influence and reliance placed on the provisions of the "Guide to Transport Impact Assessment", Nov 2024, NSW Government (NSW Guide)[1] which is a detailed reference commonly used in the determination of traffic generation and parking demands associated with various land uses.
2. The NSW Guide supersedes its predecessor, the 'Guide to Traffic Generating Developments' 2002 (usually referred to as the "RTA Guide" or "RMS Guide") and often used in the Tasmanian context. As the Second Respondent pointed out, the Tribunal has accepted that this document "is a resource but not definitive.[2] The new document has the same status.
3. Both experts giving evidence at the hearing relied on the NSW Guide to assess the parking demand of the proposal. They agreed that the proposal was to be defined as "medium density residential dwellings" under the NSW Guide but disagreed about the level of parking required under it. This disagreement involves the categorisation of the proposal under the Guide which, in turn, calls up different rates of car parking.
4. The NSW Guide sets out the following:

The new context-based parking rates recognises that the demand for parking can be influenced by a range of factors outlined in this section. It requires the identification of the category where the development is located.

Across NSW, transport accessibility can vary significantly, reflecting the diverse geography, population distribution, infrastructure and economic activities throughout the state. Inner metropolitan areas, urban centres, suburban areas and regional areas present different transportation challenges and opportunities. A categorisation approach at a Statistical Level 2 (SA2) scale has been adopted to reflect this variability, based on key indicators that influence parking demand. These indicators are:

• Within 15 minute walk to a strategic centre
• Within 30 minutes public transport to a strategic, regional or metropolitan centre
• Car mode share (all trip purposes)
• Population density.

The generalised performance of each indicator for each category is presented in Table 8.2.

Within 30 minute public transport to a strategic, regional or metropolitan centre

Category 1: Typical of urban areas with high alternative transport options and low car mode share.

Category 2: Typical of outer urban areas or regional centres with more variability in alternative transport options and medium car mode share.

Category 3: Typical of regional areas or outer urban areas with low or limited alternative transport options, low population density and high car mode share.

Given the large zone structure for the categorisation, there may be highly accessible developments in a lower category zone and vice versa. Practitioners are encouraged to present and analyse technical evidence to understand the parking demand associated with the development. For example, reference rates could be considered in the following ways:

• If the development is well serviced by alternative transport options and has a low expected car mode share for trips entering and exiting the development, provide less parking than the reference rate of parking.
• If the development has limited alternative transport options, with a high expected car mode share for trips entering and exiting the development, provide parking at or above the reference rate."

1. The suggested rates for parking in medium density developments is set out in Section 8.5.2 as below.

A car parking provision of one to two spaces is the historic provision for dwelling houses. If there is dual occupancy on a residential lot, two parking spaces are recommended. Parking provision for low density residential dwellings can vary substantially between local government areas due to varying levels of public transport accessibility as well as geographic and socio-economic factors. These factors should be considered when determining the appropriate parking provision for the development.

Medium density residential is a building containing at least two but less than 20 dwellings, with a typical net residential density of 30 to 60 dwellings per hectare and applies to residential components of:

• Attached dwellings
• Multi dwelling housing including terraces
• Manor houses
• Shop top housing, residential flat building and mixed use developments.

The parking reference rates adopt the SA2 categorisation approach outlined in Section 8.5.1. The web map to confirm the category relevant to the proposed development can be accessed here .

Table 8.3. Medium density residential dwellings - TfNSW reference rates per dwelling

1. A notable difference between the rates for resident parking in the NSW Guide and in the Scheme's Table E6.1 is that the former has different requirements for two and three bedroom dwellings whereas the latter has the same rate for two or more bedrooms. Also, the NSW Guide lists a single visitor parking requirement regardless of the circumstances of a development whereas the Scheme has differing rates for internal lots (or those at the head of a cul-de-sac) and lots without those constraints.

1. Mr Midson, on behalf of the Appellant, placed the proposal into "Category 3" in Tables 8.2 and 8.3 of the NSW Guide due to the circumstances of the site and its locality, and estimated the proposal's likely parking demand accordingly.
2. He calculated the total parking demand of the proposal at 51 spaces under the NSW Guide - thereby producing a shortfall of 11 site spaces compared with the 40 spaces provided on-site.
3. Mr Midson conducted a traffic survey of street parking in Giblin Street. These surveys showed that, on average, about 44% of the 36 spaces within about 125 m of the site were occupied at times when most residents could be expected to be at home (about 7:00 p.m. or later). This means that about 19 spaces in this area were vacant at these times. Within a larger area 300 m of the site he described as a "convenient walking distance", th_e_ peak occupancy was 60% at 7:30 a.m. on a Monday - a total of 27 spaces. Mr Midson's traffic surveys are discussed further below.
4. Regarding bus services in the locality of the site, Mr Midson's assessment was that the location and frequency of bus services near the site was very limited. He provided documentation for three bus services in the locality.
5. Route 553 runs from Lenah Valley to Hobart along Doyle Avenue with a stop about 430 metres north of the site (about 590 m from the furthest dwelling in the proposal). According to Mr Midson this service has "limited frequency and [a] lack of weekend services..."
6. Much more frequent services are provided by buses running from Lenah Valley to Hobart along Augusta Road (Routes 550, 551 and 552). These have a stop in Augusta Road at the junction of Giblin Street which is about 680 metres from the front of the site.
7. Mr Midson's summary was that "the practical utility of these services for daily transport needs is severely compromised by both distance and service limitations...."
8. There is a third service to the east of the site. This is Route 540 with stops in Salier Crescent (about 430 m from the rear of the site), and Mt Stuart Road measured by Mr Midson at 382 m from the rear of the site.

1. Mr Petrusma, on behalf of the Developer, opined that the proposal fell into "Category 2" in Tables 8.2 and 8.3 of the NSW Guide. Based on this, he calculated the parking demand of the proposal as one parking space per 21 x 2 bedroom dwellings, 1.6 spaces per 5 x 3 bedroom dwellings and 1 space per five dwellings for visitor parking. This is 29 resident and 5 visitor spaces for a total demand of 34 spaces under the NSW Guide - meaning that the 40 parking spaces provided by the proposal is six more than would be required under his interpretation of the NSW Guide.
2. Mr Petrusma also used average car ownership by number of bedrooms from the 2021 Census for Lenah Valley - Mt Stuart to calculate parking demand. He concluded that, using this data, "the needs of the residents is likely to fall somewhere in the range of 31 to 38 car parking spaces...".[3] Adding visitor parking demand[4] to these resident figures, the total demand of the proposal would be 40-47 spaces.
3. Mr Petrusma prepared surveys of the street parking in Giblin Street near the site. These were based on aerial photos. His surveys showed historical occupancy rates of 13-33% over 18 days ranging from 2011 to 2025 for Giblin Street parking south of Doyle Avenue (within about 400 m of the site). This range is equivalent to 58-76 vacant spaces. His survey results, along with Mr Midson's, are discussed further below.
4. Mr Petrusma also calculated street parking rates within the area shown in Mr Midson's proof south of McGuinness Crescent. His occupancy figures were 8-36% - considerably lower than those set out in Mr Midson's proof.
5. Regarding bus services in the locality of the site, Mr Petrusma relied on Route 540 to the east of the site. He estimated a bus stop in Salier Crescent stop at 390 metres from the site and the Mt Stuart stop 400 metres. He had not walked the paths from the site to these two stops and did not disagree with Mr Midson's assessment of the distances and difficulties of travelling to them.
6. Mr Petrusma also noted the bus services running in Doyle Avenue and Augusta Road - both being further than 400 metres from the site.

1. If the proposal provides fewer parking spaces than required by clause E6.6.1 A1 of the Scheme, the Performance Criteria in E6.6.1 P1 require the proposal to supply sufficient parking to "meet the reasonable needs of users".
2. 'Users' in this context means the occupants of the dwellings in the proposal.[5]
3. We consider that, in the circumstances of this proposal, the question to be determined simply can be stated as:

If the proposal's actual demand for car parking is greater than provided within the site, is there sufficient:

a) on-street parking, and/or

b) available/frequent public transport within 400 m of the site; and/or

c) other transport modes available and likely to be used;

Public transport (P1(c)) / other modes of transport (P1(d)).

1. It is convenient to first deal with the availability and frequency of public transport (P1(c)) and availability and likely use of other modes of transport (P1(d)).
2. The only public transport in the vicinity of the site are bus services. To be relevant, the distance of bus stops from the site is limited by the distance of 400 metres as set out in clause E6.6.1 P1(c) of the Scheme.
3. The only bus service within 400 metres of the site is the stop in Mt Stuart Road serving Route 540. Residents of the proposal using these stops would face difficulties in accessing these stops according to Mr Midson. These difficulties include a steep embankment immediately east of the site, informal and meandering access over rough ground, lack of footpaths and so on. Mr Midson provided documentation of these distances and difficulties in a series of photographs taken by him.[6] He described these services as "not convenient or accessible to residents of the proposed development...."
4. Having conducted a view of the site and having traversed the area needed to walk from the Site to the route 540 bus stops, we agree with Mr Midson's assessment. The walk to the bus stops involves traversing up and around an area known as the Mount Stuart park and playground. It would be almost impossible for anyone with a pram to navigate, and difficult for a person with any form of shopping or groceries to traverse.
5. Route 553 running along Doyle Avenue north of the site is farther than 400 metres of the site and cannot meet the requirement in E6.6.1 P1(c) and, in any event, is very infrequent in its service. The bus services in Augusta Road are even further from the site. We find that neither are relevant to our assessment.
6. What 'other modes of transport' might be is set at large by the Scheme, although it has previously been held that walking and cycling are included, which seems trite.[7]
7. Although Mr Petrusma opined that "walking, cycling, motorcycle ... are all valid modes of transport to and from the site"[8], we find that these modes of travel involve excessive distances and other constraints such as to make them insufficient to meet the reasonable needs of most of users of the proposal.
8. On that basis, we find that there are no viable frequent public transport within 400 metres walking distance of the site. We also find that the availability and likely use of other modes of transport such as walking or cycling to be relatively limited.
9. However, our findings on these matters is not conclusive. The requirement to 'have regard to' these elements in the performance criteria does not elevate each element to a mandatory requirement. They are simply matters which are relevant to our consideration along with other listed elements.[9]

1. In estimating parking demand for the proposal, the experts relied on several sources including ABS data and, particularly, the NSW Guide.
2. The ABS data is based on statistics related to existing dwellings. In the Lenah Valley - Mount Stuart area, existing dwellings are overwhelmingly single dwellings rather than multi-unit developments. It can be expected therefore that the ABS statistics would differ from those of multi-unit developments.
3. In contrast, the NSW document has been prepared for new medium density developments and is probably somewhat more accurate and relevant to the characteristics of the proposal although, being based on NSW circumstances, some of its provisions may not squarely fit with those in Tasmania. Despite these observations, we accept that both sets of information can be useful in estimating the likely level of parking demanded for the proposal and it would be prudent to have regard to both.
4. The two experts' estimates of car parking demand under the NSW Guide are as below.

1. Mr Midson and Mr Petrusma were not agreed as to what 'Category' the proposal should be placed within under the NSW Guide.
2. As can be seen from Table 8.3 of the NSW Guide, parking demand varies drastically according to the 'Category' relevant to the circumstances of specific medium density developments.
3. The Developer pointed out that Mr Midson's evidence was that only five visitor spaces were required for the proposal (under the NSW Guide) rather than the nine proposed. It was submitted that the "extra" four spaces could be allocated to residents of the proposal to reduce any shortfall by way of a condition imposed by the Tribunal. We decline to pursue this. It would be more appropriate for the developer to seek an amendment to the proposal than the Tribunal to condition an approval. We note that the nine visitor spaces provided in the proposal accords with the one space per three dwellings requirement in Table E6.1 of the Scheme.
4. The Appellant submitted that the ABS data suggested that two bedroom dwellings in the locality needed at least 1.3 to 1.363 spaces and that it was sensible to follow the NSW Guide as it was a "safe reference".
5. The Appellant further submitted that, despite parking demand and available on-street parking, it was expected under the Scheme that such parking "be prevented on a regular basis and "minimised".
6. The Council relied upon Mr Petrusma's evidence to submit that the proposal exhibits no parking shortfall and therefore complies with E6.6.1 P1.
7. It described the NSW Guide as a "crude tool" - there being no ratings between the Categories in Section 8.5.1. It is true that there are no specific in-between rates in the Category listings, but commentary contained within the Guide states:

"If the development is well serviced by alternative transport options and has a low expected car mode share for trips entering and exiting the development, provide less parking than the reference rate of parking.

If the development has limited alternative transport options, with a high expected car mode share for trips entering and exiting the development, provide parking at or above the reference rate."

1. A comprehensive assessment of the "indicators" in Section 8.5.1 of the NSW Guide to select the relevant Category is necessary. The choice of a Category based on location alone (as assessed by Mr Petrusma[10]) would be incorrect. Our assessment of the four indicators listed in Table 8.2 is as follows:
   1. "Within 15 minute walk to a strategic centre": the evidence arising from the hearing clearly indicates that the site is not within a 15 minute walk to a strategic centre (i.e. Hobart). This suggests a "Low" rating on the NSW Guide.
   2. "Within 30 minutes public transport to a strategic, regional or metropolitan centre": although there are bus routes putting the site within a 30 minute trip to the Hobart CBD, these routes are inconvenient (Route 540 to the east of the site), or too distant (the Doyle Avenue and Augusta Avenue services) to benefit the site. This suggests a "Low" rating.
   3. "Car mode share (all trip purposes)": the Lenah Valley - Mount Stuart area exhibited a high car mode share according to the 2021 Census.[11] This indicates a "High" rating.
   4. "Population density": this appeared to be a neutral factor in the evidence.
2. From the assessment above, the circumstances of the site place it firmly within Category 3, and we so find.
3. Given our finding that the proposal is a Category 3 site, we accept that Mr Midson's estimate of 51 spaces is the more appropriate figure having regard to the NSW Guide.
4. However, there is also some force in Mr Petrusma's estimates, based on ABS data, that total demand for the site is 31 to 38 resident car parking spaces. This would be a total of 40 to 47 spaces if visitor parking at the Scheme rate (1 space/3 dwellings) is added, or 36 to 43 if the rate in the NSW Guide (1/5 dwellings) is used. We consider that the peculiarities of the site[12] are such that the Scheme visitor parking rate is the more appropriate. These calculations suggest that a maximum of seven resident cars could be expected to park on the street.
5. It is prudent, therefore, to accept that the maximum parking demand for the proposal is somewhere between 47 (Petrusma) and 51 (Midson) spaces in total and we accept that this range is relevant in the assessment of this aspect of the proposal. This represents a maximum of 7 to 11 resident cars that could be expected to occupy spaces in Giblin Street.

The availability of on-street parking and public car parking in the locality (P1(b)).

1. Clause E6.6.1 P1(b) requires an analysis of "the availability of on-street and public car parking in the locality."
2. As stated above, both Mr Midson and Mr Petrusma carried out traffic surveys to work out the occupancy rates of Giblin Street parking within a 300 metre distance of the site. This is a distance which Mr Midson described as a "convenient walking distance" which we accept.
3. However their methods in carrying out the traffic surveys was slightly different.
4. Mr Petrusma carried out his surveys by reference to high resolution 'Nearmap' aerial photographs taken on various dates and various times of day. There was a limitation on the usefulness of those photographs, in that the time of day in each photograph was described in somewhat vague terms (such as 'Morning', 'Late Morning', 'Afternoon' and 'Late Afternoon'). There were no night time photographs This did not permit us to determine with any accuracy how busy the street was at the times it was likely to be most occupied (i.e. before normal working hours before people had left for work, or after normal working hours when people had returned home).
5. Mr Midson on the other hand presented his traffic survey by reference to a number of photos taken by hand on the street itself. His evidence included the precise time those photographs were taken, albeit the photographs did not provide a convenient snapshot of the whole street as the Nearmap images used by Mr Petrusma did.
6. A comparison of the results of the traffic surveys of street parking shows that the two surveys produced quite different results:

1. Mr Petrusma's occupancy numbers are significantly lower than those presented by Mr Midson and are probably somewhat lower than the maximum occupancies as they were limited to daytime hours when some residents' cars could be expected to be elsewhere.
2. However under cross examination of Mr Midson, it emerged that about 20 of the surveys relied on Mr Midson were not carried out by him personally, by one of his employees, or by an independent survey contractor - but by Mr Buckeridge, the Appellant.
3. Mr Midson accepted that he did not disclose that clearly in his report and that he ought to have. He did however say that he conducted a 'check' of four of the surveys by personally attending and verifying the results that he had been given by Mr Buckeridge. These times were on one weekday and three weekend days - the average occupancy rate at these times was 43%.
4. Another potential difficulty with Mr Midson's survey is the possibility that construction vehicles may have been present in Giblin Street at various survey times - although Mr Midson did give evidence that he told Mr Buckeridge to ignore any construction vehicles.
5. It was submitted by Mr Morris, the Developer's counsel, that we should give no weight to Mr Midson's evidence as a result of the survey data having been gathered by Mr Buckeridge.
6. The Tribunal's expert witness code of conduct requires experts who provide reports include a statement in their report which sets out "any examinations, tests or other investigations on which the expert has relied, identifying the person who carried them out and that person's qualifications". The importance of this requirement is obvious, in that it allows the Tribunal to be satisfied that any expert opinion is based wholly or substantially on the expert's specialist knowledge, and that there exists a proper basis for the facts on which the opinion is given.[13] A breach of that part of the expert witness code of conduct does not require us to reject Mr Midson's opinion, but it does go to weight[14]
7. In our view, given that the traffic surveys relied on by Mr Midson were prepared by the Applicant who is not disinterested in the outcome of this appeal and is not bound by the same obligations of independence as Mr Midson, we approach Mr Midson's traffic survey results with a significant degree of caution.
8. We find that the likely maximum level of street parking demand resulting from the proposal is in the vicinity of 11 spaces as calculated by Mr Midson (51 required, 40 provided). We also accept that the actual occupancy rates of existing Giblin Street parking are higher than those of Mr Petrusma and lower than those in Mr Midson's evidence.
9. Despite this, there is sufficient street parking in Giblin Street within a convenient distance of the site to handle the likely overflow resulting from the proposal - even if the maximum occupancy rate of 60% in Mr Midson's evidence is accepted. An occupancy rate of 60% is equivalent to there being 27 vacant spaces near the site. If these vacant spaces were to be taken up by an 11 space overflow from the proposal, an occupancy rate of 76% would result.
10. A maximum occupancy rate of 76% is lower than the level where pressures on street parking become unacceptable. Both experts agreed in oral evidence that level is an occupancy rate of 85%. As noted above, we have difficulty in accepting an occupancy level of 60% - the actual level is likely to be much lower, particularly in the light of the historical surveys carried out by Mr Petrusma.
11. It is noted that the experts' averages of 18-44% (even if correct) would also be well below the 85% occupancy threshold. We note Mr Petrusma's opinion that it is possible that the parking demand of the proposal is satisfied by the number of spaces provided on the site but choose to assess this aspect as addressed above as a "worst case" situation.
12. We find that there is sufficient on-street parking in this locality to meet the reasonable needs of users within the meaning of cl E6.6.1 P1(b) of the Scheme.

1. Based on all of the evidence and the matters set out above, we find:
   1. the proposal's actual maximum demand for car parking is greater than provided for on the site;
   2. there is not sufficient public transport within 400 metres of the site;
   3. other modes of transport to the site are likely to be limited;
   4. there is more than ample on street parking to satisfy the maximum demand for car parking over and above what is provided on the site.
2. Given our finding that there is ample on street parking, we find that the number of on-site car parking spaces is sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of the users (being the residents of the proposed dwellings). The Proposal satisfies E6.6.1 P1 in our view.
3. It follows that the sole ground of appeal is not made out, and the Council's decision to grant a planning permit is affirmed.
4. Any application for costs in this appeal is to be made in writing with supporting submissions within 28 days from the date of these reasons. In the absence of any such application supported by submissions being filed, the Tribunal will order that each party bear its own costs.

[1] See: https://standards.transport.nsw.gov.au/search-standard-specific/?id=AST%20-%200005108:2023

[2] Costmac Investments Pty Ltd v Sorell Council [2021] TASRMPAT 27 at [39].

[3] Paragraph 6.5.29 of Mr Petrusma's Statement of Evidence in chief, 2 July 2025.

[4] Using the requirement of 1 space /3 dwellings (rounded up) as listed in Table E6.1 of the Scheme for internal lots - i.e. nine spaces.

[5] Jacobs v Hobart City Council [2023] TASCAT 158 at [87]

[6] Which were received into evidence as exhibits A3, A4, A5, A6 and A7.

[7] Costmac Investments Pty Ltd v Sorell Council [2021] TASRMPAT 27 at [44]

[8] Paragraph 6.7.27 of his Statement of Evidence in chief.

[9] S & S McElwaine & A Hamilton v West Tamar Council and Growth Developments Pty Ltd [2021] TASCAT 4 at [28], Jacobs v Hobart City Council [2023] TASCAT 158 at [91]

[10] Paragraph 6.5.12 of his Statement of Evidence in chief.

[11] Table 2, Midson Statement of Evidence 2 July 2025.

[12] The site is an internal lot and close to the end of the Giblin Street cul-de-sac.

[13] See Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 at [85].

[14] See Secretary to the Department of Business and Innovation v Murdesk Investments Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 581 at [97] - [99].